Jump to content
The World News Media

JW Lawyer on Disfellowshipping and Shunning


Jack Ryan

Recommended Posts

  • Member

 

Expect noting from anybody, and you will seldom be disappointed.

"Murphy's Laws" have many variants .... Murphy's Laws for Combat, Murphy's Laws for Table Manners, Murphy's  Laws for Babies with Poopy Diapers, Murphy's Laws for Business, Murphy's Laws for Engineers, etc.

Learning many of these as might apply to your lifestyle is a way to have realistic expectations.

Fortunately, Mr. Google can help you with that.

Good mental health BEGINS with seeing the world, and the things in it, as they REALLY are ...... not how we WISH they would be.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 7.4k
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jehovah's Witness Organization Redefines Shunning to Falsely.mp4 Every JW visiting this page should MORALLY comment below and publicly state that this JW Lawyer is LYING through his teeth to the C

Well, there were 2 inaccurate points that lawyer made, they have to seat in the second room or at the back of the hall and not allow to enter the hall before prayer and they have to leave the hall bef

Posted Images

  • Member
12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If we believe that Christianity fully calls for what appears to be a loveless stance, then we should be proud of it, and express it clearly to the highest courts in every land.

I agree. What I meant about an apparently loveless stance obviously does not appear loveless to Christians (JW) but it does appear loveless to the world. Therefor if we try to "hide" a certain policy, which we believe is Biblical,  it means we are seeking favor with the world, or compromising. Generally, throughout the history of JWs, individuals have put their well being and even life on the line for expressing clearly their loyalty to Bible principles to the highest courts in the land, no matter how they were viewed by the world. But we both know that the term 'theocratic warfare ' means we can find ways of obfuscating in order not to endanger other JWs, and we do not have to say anything to those who are not entitled to it, for the same reason. Obviously this principle can be misused as it appeared to be by the JW lawyer in question. (I don't really like to base my opinion on partial information, as is the short clip of the video. I mentioned that in my first comment. What if the issue really was exclusively about a family member living at home).

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

A full warning to elders about the importance of the updated processes should include the ARC hearings, for example. The elders will understand the importance of such shame as a motivation to do the right thing. Some of those elders should have been "shamed" at the time when they thought more about reputation than protection of children.

Agree. I did in fact send a link to the ARC hearings to an elder who was involved in an issue I mentioned to you privately.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? . . . Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.

On the issue of the range of acceptable and unacceptable medical therapies involving blood, this is probably too touchy a subject to get into right now. I'll make it a bit easier by going back to our position with respect to pets:

*** w64 2/15 pp. 127-128 Questions From Readers ***
Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it?

Both WT you quoted are thankfully rather dated. 

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If I buy butcher's bones for a large dog that still have bloody bits of meat on them, and of course, the marrow filled with whole blood cells, I can't feed them to my dog. I'm told that my conscience won't allow it. And if my cat or pet snake loves live mice, can I buy them and feed them to the cat or snake, without first draining the blood from them? Can I use live minnows on a hook while fishing without first draining the blood from those minnows? Do we keep a country dog from picking at roadkill, or snapping at mosquitoes or ticks?

I think the difference between your scenarios and the examples in the WT is that the WT examples were about  processing blood, therefor misusing it. Buying products where blood was added as an ingredient or was specially processed would be tantamount to supporting the misuse of blood.

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And if a circumstance comes up where a one-year-old child will most likely die without an available white cell, plasma or red cell hemoglobin treatment, and will most likely live if she receives one, then must our "conscience" be imposed on that child?

I think that an underage child does not really have a say in the matter, so don't think there is an issue of imposing conscience on the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
43 minutes ago, Anna said:

Obviously this principle can be misused as it appeared to be by the JW lawyer in question. (I don't really like to base my opinion on partial information, as is the short clip of the video. I mentioned that in my first comment. What if the issue really was exclusively about a family member living at home).

In that case, I think how JW layer had enough time to explain before Court ALL and EVERY SMALL DETAILS on SHUNNING POLICY.

But he didn't. WHY? Why not to explain all about JW way of living and how they practice Bible principles, to all this people involved in case? It would be Great Witnessing ... and he will make JHVH to be very proud.

:))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for

First of all, thank you TTH that you did made this big answer on my reaction comment.

You may think about my comments as "tauntingly". If i or somebody else ("apostate") told you, how this or that in WT Society is wrong, with more or less evidence, you would not accept it, because that is apostate lies. If some making "sarcastic" comments, that also will not help you because such "approach" is not good for you, too. Maybe you are right how this way is not "spiritual enough", "loving enough", "theocratic enough", "legalistic enough" to be acceptable to you or to some other person from JW Church.  But this is how it is. I can't change you, and you can't change me. :))

About quote above. I am not sure, but thinking how Paul was talking about Scriptures that was considered "inspired" and God's Word, in their point/period of time. Well, i think he spoke about Pentateuch, Prophetic books, Psalms as ..... Scriptures.  

So, what he had in mind with terminology/word -  Scriptures - it is/was not some other Letters or Writings in HIS TIME. But ONLY WHAT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE HIM. MANY YEARS BEFORE HIM. 

So, when we today going to use his words, "All Scripture" than we must be more precisely. Because,  His Idea and Our Idea about what is CONTENT and MEANING of wording "All Scripture" IS NOT The SAME. :))

Nothing Ironic, Sarcastic, Taunting in comment i didn't put. Just tried to be more explicit. 

Well, if people today quoting something from Bible, it would be correct and fair to know how people in past (Paul in this case) had some OTHER THINGS in his/their mind when they used word (and quotes from) "Scriptures".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, Anna said:

I think that an underage child does not really have a say in the matter, so don't think there is an issue of imposing conscience on the child.

Disagree. Their say is the fact that their blood cries out from the ground over any injustice imposed upon them in this life.

(Genesis 4:10) . . . Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.

(Revelation 6:9, 10) . . .the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given. 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying. . .

A sheep bleats and bleats to be saved after falling into a pit on the Sabbath. A strict Sabbath-keeper will sacrifice the life of that sheep by imposing his conscience over the life of that sheep.

(Deuteronomy 19:10)  In this way no innocent blood will be spilled in your land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, and no bloodguilt will come upon you.

(Deuteronomy 27:25) . . .“‘Cursed is the one who accepts a bribe to kill [a soul of innocent blood] an innocent person.’ (And all the people will say, ‘Amen!’)

(Matthew 12:11, 12) . . .“If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .

4 hours ago, Anna said:

Both WT you quoted are thankfully rather dated. 

Herd of the Governing Body? He recommended that we go back and read "Angels & Women," a very interesting book from the 1870s/1920s that he found in the Bethel Library.

4 hours ago, Anna said:

the WT examples were about  processing blood, therefor misusing it.

The only type of blood that we are "conscientiously" allowed to use without consequence is processed blood, fractions processed from whole blood. For human blood, processing is the only way NOT to misuse it. Also, notice that the article indicates that the only correct way for a pet to eat blood is if it "helps itself" to [whole] blood after killing another animal. A direct act by us makes us responsible. (My wife put up a bird feeder that inadvertently made it easier for our cat to kill and eat birds, but that is an indirect act, I think.)

*** w64 2/15 p. 127 Questions From Readers ***
for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him.

4 hours ago, Anna said:

Buying products where blood was added as an ingredient or was specially processed would be tantamount to supporting the misuse of blood.

As indicated above, when any of us use conscientiously "approved" blood products with or without insurance or tax based health care, we are "buying products where blood was . . . specially processed." No such products would be available to us if that blood had been properly poured out upon the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My wife put up a bird feeder that inadvertently made it easier for our cat to kill and eat birds, but that is an indirect act, I think.)

Tell her to put up one in which the pole is encased in a Slinky. They are unbeatable. As the squirrel (or maybe cat) climbs up the pole, he gets almost to the top, and his paws grab the Slinky, at which point he abruptly slides to the ground and lands on his squirrelly rear end. She (and the birds) will laugh so hard about this that whatever project she undertakes that day will succeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

...

 

2019-08-05_210138.jpg

Now that Toys-R-US is  bankrupt, and closed, I do not know where to buy a Slinky.

So I use a precariously balanced red brick at the platform level, or a large beat up tall black hat, like desperadoes used to wear.

  I understand if a squirrel gets in one it is trapped forever, and it attracts more squirrels.  Then, when a cat shows up and gets trapped, ... well ... let's just say watching the hat owner has entertainment value, that can't be beat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

As indicated above, when any of us use conscientiously "approved" blood products with or without insurance or tax based health care, we are "buying products where blood was . . . specially processed." No such products would be available to us if that blood had been properly poured out upon the ground.

That one little piece of logic makes it crystal clear that Jehovah's Witnesses management had it right to begin with, "no blood or blood fractions", but then they caved to rescue their money and real estate from lawsuits.

The Lawyers and Accountants are now running the show, and deciding what is proper theology, based on money.

We had it right .... and THEN, screwed it up.

Mammon would be pleased. (Matthew 6:24)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@James Thomas Rook Jr. 

The term itself is accurate however.

  • Think not that I am come … - This is taken from Micah 7:6. Christ did not here mean to say that the object of his coming was to produce discord and contention, for he was the Prince of Peace, Isaiah 9:6; Isaiah 11:6; Luke 2:14; but he means to say that such would be one of the effects of his coming. One part of a family that was opposed to Him would set themselves against those who believed in him. The wickedness of men, and not the religion of the gospel, is the cause of this hostility. It is unnecessary to say that no prophecy has been more strikingly fulfilled; and it will continue to be fulfilled until all unite in obeying his commandments. Then his religion will produce universal peace. Compare the notes at Matthew 10:21.
  • But a sword - The sword is an instrument of death, and to send a sword is the same as to produce hostility and war.

Also see for commentary - https://biblehub.com/matthew/10-34.htm

On 8/4/2019 at 7:34 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If you cannot forgive your enemies, the most you should do is forget them.

We should always forgive them, despite how vile some of them are. But not everyone takes into account forgiveness and repentance of sin, instead consider it nothing more as a game, for endless relapse into sin and err.

So as imperfect ones, some among us, are truly not all that forgiving, nor some of us are all that repentant, thus throwing away of what the Bible says regarding such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 8/5/2019 at 2:37 PM, JW Insider said:
On 8/5/2019 at 12:43 PM, Anna said:

I think that an underage child does not really have a say in the matter, so don't think there is an issue of imposing conscience on the child.

Disagree. Their say is the fact that their blood cries out from the ground over any injustice imposed upon them in this life.

(Genesis 4:10) . . . Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.

(Revelation 6:9, 10) . . .the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given. 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying. . .

A sheep bleats and bleats to be saved after falling into a pit on the Sabbath. A strict Sabbath-keeper will sacrifice the life of that sheep by imposing his conscience over the life of that sheep.

(Deuteronomy 19:10)  In this way no innocent blood will be spilled in your land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, and no bloodguilt will come upon you.

(Deuteronomy 27:25) . . .“‘Cursed is the one who accepts a bribe to kill [a soul of innocent blood] an innocent person.’ (And all the people will say, ‘Amen!’)

(Matthew 12:11, 12) . . .“If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .

I am sorry, I realized it sounded like I was telling you what you should be thinking. There were a lot of people coming and going out of the house and talking to me, so I found it hard to concentrate, I changed the sentence around a bit and forgot to put the I back. It should have read " so I don't think..."

Of course the child has rights, and one of those rights is the right to live. I think I am beginning  to understand the angle you are looking at it from. Like what right do the parents have to say that a child is to die as a result of their (the parents conscience). It's complicated, because it's true that no one has the right to decide over the life (as in life or death) of another human. On the  other hand the parents are responsible in Jehovah's eyes to uphold the law.  I understand now why you brought up the parallel example with the pets. So in effect persons are upholding the law not only for themselves but also for others in their care, whether it be children or pets. (Or as you call it imposing their conscience). I can see that a part of the problem is that both children and pets are dependent on the adults and that both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are, and therefor the adults in charge of them make the decisions for them.
But I think the main misunderstanding in our dialogue has been because we have both been approaching the issue from different angles, for example the Bible says children belong to Jehovah, and that they are merely in the parents care. So assuming Jehovah really means that the law on blood includes all forms of manipulation with blood, and all forms of ingesting blood whether by mouth or intravenously, what would HIS decision be regarding the treatment of the child?   In that case, aren't the parents merely trying to uphold what they believe would be Jehovah's decision, rather than anything to do with imposing their conscience onto a dependent child? So I think that's the angle I was coming at it from. But you were looking at it from the point of view of the rights of a dependent child (or pet) per se. Am I understanding it right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 8/5/2019 at 1:35 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

But he didn't. WHY? Why not to explain all about JW way of living and how they practice Bible principles, to all this people involved in case? It would be Great Witnessing ... and he will make JHVH to be very proud.

The problem is, we were only show a small clip of the video...

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
    • One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated.  It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.  
  • Members

    • Mapanda

      Mapanda 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JW Insider

      JW Insider 9,752

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,408

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.